Figure 1
The flow is from top to bottom, with all questions enclosed in rectangles and all outcomes enclosed in ovals. The process begins with the initial question: “Should multiple actors have decision power?” A “No” answer leads to the outcome “Centralized solutions should be employed.” A “Yes” answer leads to “Do the actors trust a third party?” A “Yes” response leads to “Centralized solutions should be employed,” and a “No” response leads to “Do the actors trust the majority?” A “No” answer here results in “Blockchain cannot be employed,” while a “Yes” answer moves to “Are the actors equally influential?” A “No” response leads to “Blockchain employment is unlikely or dangerous,” and a “Yes” answer goes to “Is sharing data advantageous for the actors?” A “No” answer leads to “Separate databases should be employed,” and a “Yes” answer proceeds to “Have actors aligned interests to cooperate?” A “No” answer results in “Blockchain cannot be employed,” and a “Yes” answer moves to “Have misbehaving actors opposed interests?” A “No” answer leads to “Blockchain does not solve trust issues,” and a “Yes” answer goes to “Are all the relevant actors involved in the management of the system?” A “No” answer results in “Blockchain may not achieve expected goals,” and a “Yes” answer moves to “Are the actors sufficiently autonomous?” A “No” answer leads to “Blockchain does not solve trust issues,” and a “Yes” answer proceeds to “Should retroactive data manipulation be prevented?” A “No” answer results in “Communication standards should be employed,” and a “Yes” answer moves to “Should proactive data manipulation be prevented?” A “Yes” answer leads to “Blockchain might not be enough,” and a final “Yes” answer results in “Blockchain is a good choice.”The proposed decision-making framework for blockchain adoption